Hundreds of thousands of potential voters here were left scrambling in the wake of Pennsylvania’s voter ID law — enough to prompt speculation as to whether the law could change the outcome of the election in November.

But one thing is clear: The law is already having a dramatic effect on how the election is being waged.

Democrats and their allies, who vehemently oppose the voter ID legislation, are still pinning their hopes on legal challenges to the law. But if the law survives, political organizers in Pennsylvania will have to alter their outreach plans to include identifying, contacting and getting proper identifications for thousands of voters.

“It scares the shit out of us,” Yuri Beckelman, campaign communications director for the AFL-CIO of Pennsylvania, said of the number of voters potentially affected. The union and several other allied groups are forming a statewide coalition aimed at “education and mobilization” around the voter ID law requirements.

The estimated 750,000 voters who do not have state-issued IDs in Pennsylvania surpasses President Obama’s margin of victory in 2008. Many of the voters without ID are in poor and minority communities — typically blocs that vote Democratic. Democrats’ worst fears appeared to be confirmed when the Republican leader of the state House, who helped shepherd the legislation onto the books, recently boasted that it will “allow” Mitt Romney win the Keystone State.

Democrats now have to make sure voters are aware of the law, know whether they comply, know how to meet the requirements if they don’t already — and do it all before Election Day. This could be a steep climb. Only one of five voters approached by TPM at Obama’s Pittsburgh rally Friday knew the law existed.

Let’s stipulate the TPM, while impeccably fair, is strongly sympathetic to the Democratic Party. They’re reporting here the fears of Democrats, who naturally have an incentive to create hysteria among their base about the topic, and even that is based on thin evidence. After all, the fear is based on the fact that we just don’t know who doesn’t have ID.

Republicans would naturally counter that Pennsylvania’s new law has received widespread coverage–presumably especially in Pennsylvania–and that there’s plenty of time for those who want to vote to procure a state-issued ID card.

That said, it’s undeniable that it’s much harder for very low income hourly workers to take several hours out of their day to get to a DMV or other state office and wait around to get a photo ID. Further, given that they presumably already exist in some sort of quasi-underground economy that permits them to get by on a daily basis without photo ID, they’re incredibly unlikely to do so in order to facilitate taking a couple hours out of their day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November to vote. And, of course, these marginal voters are disproportionately likely to vote Democrat.

My inclination in years past was: Tough noogies. Really, people, how hard is it to get an ID? Most, if not all, states require people to register to vote. So, why not knock out the ID requirement at the same time? And who the hell doesn’t have an ID, anyway? We check people’s ID card for everything from taking an airplane ride to cashing a check to getting into an R-rated (er, NC-17) movie. Surely, it’s not unreasonable to ask them to show one to ensure our elections are above-board.

While that remains my visceral reaction, there’s a slight problem with it: there’s essentially no evidence that significant numbers of people are engaging in the sort of voter fraud that would be preventable by requiring photo identification. Which means that we’re essentially disenfranchising large numbers of people to prevent something we’re pretty sure isn’t happening. Given that the people being disenfranchised are disproportionately from one political party and that the people pushing for these laws are almost entirely from the opposing political party, that’s problematic.

I have no problem in theory with voter ID laws. But there’s little evidence that these laws are about anything other than putting up extra hurdles for Democratic voters. In some states, like Texas, they even include special exceptions to the ID requirement for traditionally Republican constituencies.

That’s not just problematic: that’s a nation-wide movement on the Republican side that’s astoundingly cynical, vile, and anti-democratic, small d.

Which means that we’re essentially disenfranchising large numbers of people to prevent something we’re pretty sure isn’t happening. Given that the people being disenfranchised are disproportionately from one political party and that the people pushing for these laws are almost entirely from the opposing political party, that’s problematic.

“About a week ago, Republican Mike Turzai, Pennsylvania’s House Majority Leader, made a startling confession. Boasting about the state’s new voter-ID law, which was ostensibly about the integrity of the electoral process, Turzai bragged that the law “is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”

Voter fraud that would be stopped by voter ID is exceedingly rare. Voter fraud is mostly done by election officials. I am a PA resident. I am planning on raising a fuss when they ask for my ID.

“And who the hell doesn’t have an ID, anyway? We check people’s ID card for everything from taking an airplane ride to cashing a check to getting into an R-rated (er, NC-17) movie.”

I disagree with the assertion so often made that photo ID is required on anything resembling a regular basis. My travels in the past year have been confined to the Northeast US, so I’ve used train or car. I don’t write checks, everything is paid with cash or card. I’m sufficiently old that I’m not asked for ID to purchase alcohol or get into a movie. I drive reasonably, and don’t get pulled over.

I don’t think I’ve pulled my license out of my wallet once in the past year. If I was asked to show it for some reason, I’d have to shuffle through the stack of miscellany in my wallet to even find it.

So, yes, to people of a certain economic status, the notion of not having a photo ID seems odd, but, really, it’s not needed to live life. If it were, there would be no identity theft.

A low-level state employee was fired Thursday after he sent an email to his fellow employees telling them about the state Department of Transportation’s policy on giving out free photo identification cards for voting.

Chris Larsen, who had worked in the mail room at the state Department of Safety and Professional Services, sent an email Thursday morning to all employees at the agency’s headquarters explaining that the DOT would provide photo IDs to people only if they specifically asked to have the fee waived.

If you have problem getting people to vote for your candidate just make sure that enough people aren’t able to vote for the other candidate…

On the more serious side, as with all such ideas, it sounds great in theory but the devil is in the details.

Also:

Given that the people being disenfranchised are disproportionately from one political party and that the people pushing for these laws are almost entirely from the opposing political party, that’s problematic.

Republicans are no longer interested in democracy. They “stole” the election of 2000 (hard to see Bush v. Gore in any other light) and were soon talking of a “Permanent Republican Majority”. That tells the tale right there. How does one get to a “Permanent Republican Majority” without rigging elections? Especially when the evolving demographics of our country so favor the Democratic Party?

The Republicans should do a little evolving of their own, and win elections on the issues that concern minority voters, but I am afraid that is impossible. The reason is they by and large hate minority voters. I look at their actions and can come to no other conclusion. That goes for blacks, hispanics, gays, muslims, and even women to some extent.

They know they can’t win fair and square. Their only choice is to rig elections. Everything from gerrymandering (see Texas) to marginalizing certain voters (see ID laws) to purging voters from the rolls under specious conditions (see Florida).

They have given us the economy of a banana republic, and now they want to give us the elections of a banana republic. And they just might succeed.

Back in 2000, 12,000 eligible voters – a number twenty-two times larger than George W. Bush’s 537 vote triumph over Al Gore – were wrongly identified as convicted felons and purged from the voting rolls in Florida, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. African Americans, who favored Gore over Bush by 86 points, accounted for 11 percent of the state’s electorate but 41 percent of those purged.

Obviously both Gore and Edwards would have been impeached after allowing 9/11 to happen, so I guess it would have been President Hastert instead of President Bush…

Sounds to me like this is where real community organizing is required. This can be turned around but it needs lots of publicity, getting people to the right offices and getting the cards issued. This as well as challenging the law in court. Instead of super PAC money going to those crap ads get it to the organizers.

In a major story ignored for the most part by major news outlets in Wisconsin, the Racine recall race between Republican Van Wanggaard and Democrat Jim Lehman for the 21st district state senate seat on June 5th was a complete fiasco.

On purpose.

What happened in the Racine area was simply organized chaos by the left to win an election. It appears that the left-leaning Government Accountability Board is simply going to ignore the rules that were violated in Racine and other fraudulent, questionable activities and occurrences on recall election day.

Where to start?

1) Missing pages of poll books, in which voters (same day registrants) were supposed to sign their names

2) Voters providing mailers listing “occupant” as proof of residency – and such “proof” being accepted by poll workers in spite of challenges by poll watchers

3) Busses, vans, and cars coming up from Illinois being parked around polling stations

4) Unsealed, then re-sealed, and re-opened ballot bags

5) Wrong and unverifiable addresses of voters

6) Wrong voter numbers

7) Electors failing to sign poll books as REQUIRED BY LAW

From “Sheriff’s Department launches probe into alleged voting irregularities” (Caledonia Patch/June 20, 2012)
A polling inspector refused to uphold the challenge of a poll watcher, who saw that a voter had showed improper documentation to a poll worker at Bryant Park in Racine. The voter had submitted a handwritten rental receipt as proof of residency.
A poll worker at the Jefferson Lighthouse was seen canvassing while she was supposed to be working. The woman claimed she was asked to let voters know that they shouldn’t park near the student play area, but poll watchers followed the woman outside and noticed she was going door to door.
A poll worker provided assistance to voters and did not document it.
In at least one polling site, poll workers were supposed to have a witness oversee the transfer of copy of absentee ballots onto real ballots that could go through the machine, but they only had one person doing the work Caesar Chavez Center in Racine.

What happened in Racine and the surrounding wards is shameful. A blatant attack on the legitimacy of the voting process. It sure looks like Republican Van Wanggaard was “Frankened” by the left – losing due to the “cheat factor,” with help from the GAB. Did the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel or any of the larger news outlets in the state cover this with any real digging to get to the bottom of what happened in Racine? No. To the liberal media, this was a non-story because their guy won. And that is all that matters. So they will look the other way.

We must not.

This must serve as yet another lesson for all who care about honest elections. November is just a few months away. The race for the presidency is paramount and is shaping up to be the most important election our country will ever see. The United States is at a tipping point – under assault from within by Barack Obama and his socialist minions. If we want to take our country back, Mitt Romney MUST be elected our next president. An honest election in Wisconsin will ensure this happens.

As Wisconsinites know, the Voter ID LAW (yes, it passed) is STILL being roadblocked by liberal activist judges. With Voter ID in place for the recall elections, it is a pretty safe bet that Van Wanggaard would have kept his senate seat. But this is a case of fraud winning out. We must not let this happen again in November. We need to bombard our elected officials with demands that they force the hands of the courts to act on Voter ID. Even if the lefty judges rule against it, the law will end up in the Supreme Court, where it will be reinstated. Time is of the essence. Voter ID MUST be in place come November.

Hopefully, Van Wanggaard WILL take his very valid and strong case of voter fraud to the courts. If for nothing else, such a case will serve to expose the level that the left will go to in order to swing elections. People must wake up and not sit complacently by, allowing this to happen.

(As a side note, remember how the lefties demanded Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus of Waukesha County LOSE her job for simply failing to report Brookfield vote totals to the Associated Press in a timely fashion in the past Wisconsin Supreme Court race? Well, Racine County Clerk Wendy Christensen obviously didn’t do her job and SHOULD get fired. She oversaw an intentional mess. Real ballot bags being stuffed, sealed, then re-opened and sealed again. Laws ignored about signing poll books. Rules thrown out the window regarding what constitutes a valid “proof of residency” with little concern that voters were who they said they were. Poll workers apparently lacking in poll work training. Yet, where is the outcry from the left about Ms. Christensen’s job performance?)

Here are Racine County Clerk Wendy Christensen’s own words about the recall election voting concerns:

“I believe I’ve done a lot when it comes to training poll workers, but it’s clear that municipal clerks need to be sure they’re hiring competent help. The way things were documented and the document sealing reflects poorly on the election process.”

Christensen’s deputy, Roseanne Kuemmel, agreed.

“These were not minor clerical errors. I’m appalled that they’re being classified in that manner because what happened in the city make people lose their confidence in our election process.”

News flash, Ms. Kuemmel, many of us honest voters – who only vote once come election time – are sick and tired of the antics of the left when it comes to voter fraud. We know it happens. The left knows it happens.

Do not allow what happened in Racine to happen in Wisconsin come November. Let’s work to ensure honest elections – and getting Voter ID reinstated is the first step.

According to this article, as many as 99% of voters in Pennsyslvania may have the proper ID to vote. The 750,000 figure cited does not include those who have other acceptable forms of ID, such as student and military IDs and passports.

Also, I don’t see how asking for an ID prior to voting is a very high hurdle to overcome. In order to take advantage of most significant governmental activities, a form of identification is a requirement.

This article is amazing. The figures the left is using are hysterically exaggerated, as is the difficulty of getting an ID and the consequences of not having one. In PA a nursing home ID (just something simple- essentially vouching for a person being a resident) qualifies, for instance. The media is everywhere talking about it, and in any close election the people who cast provisional ballots because they did not bring an ID would be contacted and identified so their votes would count. Look into things, a bit, people!

“The fact is, it’s not a question of whether can Mitt Romney win,” Priebus said. “The statement is, Mitt Romney has to win for the sake of the very idea of America. Mitt Romney has to win for liberty and freedom. We have to put an end to this Barack Obama presidency before it puts an end to our way of life in America.”

Today I have stood, where once Jefferson Davis stood, and took an oath to my people. It is very appropriate then that from this Cradle of the Confederacy, this very Heart of the Great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us done, time and time again through history. Let us rise to the call of freedom loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny . . . and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever.

Reince isn’t quite in the same class as old George, but give him time, he’s still learning!

@john personna: Strictly speaking, asking for photo ID when using a credit card is a violation of the Visa and Mastercard merchant agreements, unless the cardholder indicates the desire to be asked for ID on the signature line on the back — instead of signing it, you write “Ask for photo ID” or something similar. As far as they are concerned, possession of the card is sufficient.

Pretty stunning when you think about it, since it encourages fraud, but since Visa and MC have everything set up so that the cost of fraud falls almost solely on the merchant, they and their bank issuers have nothing to lose. The reason small merchants ask for ID is that they want to prevent getting defrauded by stolen cards, but they’re too small-fry to attract attention from Visa and MC.

In a major story ignored for the most part by major news outlets in Wisconsin, the Racine recall race between Republican Van Wanggaard and Democrat Jim Lehman for the 21st district state senate seat on June 5th was a complete fiasco.

Even if it was true, I thought you would give us evidence of massive voter fraud…

I do not accept the premise of “Really, people, how hard is it to get an ID?”

Because it is not a question of difficulty.

It is a question of constitutionality.

It is the 24th Amendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Bottom line: I must not have to pay to vote.

We have this, because the South tried to game the rights of Americans and limit voting.

Our Democratic Republic had to step in and put an end to that.

Now, we have this happening, again.

Want to fix the problem?

Here’s an idea – Make us a real democracy, and make voting mandatory (like Brazil)

Here’s another – Create a national ID, provided free to every American Citizen. Make it easy to get at any library or shopping mall or public building. Make it easy to “grandfather” senior citizens or home born individuals that may not have documentation.

Is that going to happen?

No.

Because it’s not about ensuring the voting rights of Americans.

It’s about preventing Americans from voting.

James, how can any conservative that sees what is happening say to themselves “I, for one, welcome our new Jim Crow overlords!” ?

Unless… it’s no longer about rights or freedom… it’s just about winning.

Why not just say: “Really, people, how hard is it to get a free speech?”

None of the stuff GA cited would have been affected by having a voter ID. If there was fraud, it was done by the election officials. If you care about voter fraud, stop them.

“Look into things, a bit, people!”

Many of us have. SOme of us have read books on the topic and looked into the claims of voter fraud by conservatives. What you do not find, is fraud that would be affected by having an ID. Election officials is where you find the problem, Absentee ballots are where you find a lot of the dead people voting. Voter ID is a solution looking fora problem. FInd the fraud, prove it exists, and I will support having IDs.

The Pennsylvania Law shows how this whole Voter ID issue isn’t really about preventing fraud. Pennsylvania already required you to bring a voter registration card and some form of identification (which could include various forms of non-photo ID like a social security card) the first time you voted at a particular polling station, at which point the voter was required to sign a pre-printed voter’s list of everyone at that station who had been issued a voter registration card. In subsequent elections your identity was confirmed by making you sign the pre-printed list again and matching your signature to the one already in the voter roll.

If someone was able to get themselves onto the list frauduently under that system, it’s unlikely they’d have any trouble getting a fake Pennsylvania ID card made. This is purely about invconveniencing people.

House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, one of the Republicans who guided the voter ID bill through the Legislature in March, was listing recent legislative accomplishments at a meeting of the Republican State Committee in June, when he added: “Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania — done.”

I mean, a blind eye is one thing, but stuffing one’s ears is another.

Second, on this:

This week state election officials answered an important question: How many people are affected? The state now says more than 758,000 registered voters lack PennDOT-issued photo IDs, about 9 percent of all registered voters. Compare this figure with estimates by Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele, who previously said 99 percent of voters already had a valid photo ID needed to vote. The new law does allow other photo IDs to be used, such as passports, student IDs with expiration dates, up-to-date military IDs, and IDs issued to government workers.

That is just Carol Aichele’s estimate. I don’t know why it would be true. How many of us have Photo IDs other than our driver’s license? I’ve got a passport, but I’d say they go along with driver’s licenses most of the time. Photo IDs are going to cluster. People who have them probably have more than one, and people without them don’t.

After the 2008 election, there were just as many Democrats talking about the “permanent Democratic majority”. Everytime either party ends up control both the Presidency and the Congress, they tend to let it go to their heads and start making ridiculous predictions of future success. That doesn’t mean puffery should be confused for conspiracy.

For the record, in the 20 years that I’ve been voting at my regular polling place, I’ve never been asked to show photo-identification. The routine is this: they ask my name, confirm my address from their register, and have me sign the register next to my name and address. Again … I’ve never been asked to provide photo-identification.

In the absence of any evidence of voter fraud, the GOP just figured they could easily suppress Democratic voter turn out with this legislation. It’s that simple.

The plan fact is that (G.A.’s quoting of a blog post excepted) there has never been any findings of any type of voter fraud of the type that the GOP claims that Voter ID laws would prevent. If there had been any credible studies or findings of voter fraud the GOP would make sure that every person in America new about it.

Between 2000 and 2010, 13 people were convicted of voter fraud. 13! And most of that time the DOJ was led by a Republican.

If “‘voter fraud” and “election integrity” were true concerns of the GOP, you think that they would also scrutinize absentee ballots, which are a heck of a lot easier to manipulate than showing up at a polling place and pretending to be someone else. Of course, more absentee voters tend to vote for the GOP. It must be a coincidence, right?

@Jay_Dubbs: If election integrity was a priority, we’d have a national voting database that each polling place could immediately check the voter against and that would prevent double voting. And we’d also have federal voting standards.

The argument of “how do these people get by without an ID” is silliness. ID’s get lost and expire, and people who don’t engage in conspicuous consumption can get by just fine. Heck, I’m upper middle class and the only times I ever show my ID are when I order a cocktail, get on a plane or rent a car. I have an ATM card and direct deposit, so I never show ID at the bank, the neighborhood liquor store clerks know me and don’t ID me anymore. And I don’t get pulled over but once every 10 years.

If I were poorer than I am now, travel and restaurants would be the first things I cut back. If I did, I could probably go years without showing my ID, which would also put it at a low priority to replace.

For people at or near the poverty line (as James said) it makes a lot of sense why they wouldn’t have an ID. Why spend time and money that you don’t have on something that you don’t really need for anything?

I agree that I appreciate evolution in James’ thinking on this issue, but I can’t overstate how distressing it is that this “Tough noogies” attitude is common among Republicans. Voting is a fundamental right. And yet, it appears that a majority of Republicans are all to willing to set up and support road blocks that will prevent the exercise of that right.

Given the complete lack of evidence of any significant level of voter fraud and the thousands of people who risk wrongful disenfranchisement as a result of these laws, “problematic” seems like a significant understatement.

@EMRVentures: When I ride Amtrak on the NE corridor, I’m asked for a photo ID. Several times, in fact: Before I can get on the platform at Union Station in DC, 30th St. Station in Philly, and Penn Station in NYC. I’m asked again on board the train, when the conductor comes to check tickets.

@Liberal Cap: Requiring an ID card is not a poll tax. The IDs are available for free. What cost there is, is confined to whatever minimal expense is involved in getting to the issuing office.

Florida has requested* photo ID following massive voter fraud in the 1997 election in Miami of Mayor Suarez. The corruption was so blatant that it was overturned by the Florida 3rd District Court of Appeals.

I’m not persuaded that because voter fraud claimed as a low-frequency crime it should be ignored. We have sobriety checkpoints, don’t we? Most of the drivers passing through these checkpoints aren’t drunk; a few are. Stopping the few drunk drivers is seen as worthwhile. These checkpoints, if conducted correctly are constitutional [See Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz].

Is safeguarding voting from fraud less important than protecting drivers from drunk drivers? One affects, what? a dozen families at most while the other can affect the entire country.

*If government-issued photo ID is not available, there are options. These include other photo ID, utilities bills, leases, etc. that show both name and address. Even without these, one can cast a provisional vote that is later verified by election officials.

“These include other photo ID, utilities bills, leases, etc. that show both name and address. Even without these, one can cast a provisional vote that is later verified by election officials.”

Some other photo ID’s are permitted, but not many. Especially egregious is not permitting student ID’s to be used, even with photos. Utility bills and leases, and other items which do not have a photo won’t help.

Nor will casting a provisional ballot, as in order to make it count, you then need to show up with the photo ID to the courthouse.

“Is safeguarding voting from fraud less important than protecting drivers from drunk drivers?”

If there were fraud on any significant scale, I would understand this attitude. On the other hand, since there is effectively none, in spite of it being a priority for US Attorneys under the prior administration, the loss of citizens’ rights to vote is far more significant.

Florida has requested* photo ID following massive voter fraud in the 1997 election in Miami of Mayor Suarez.

Interesting, because that link you gave points out that the fraud involved absentee ballots and the judge’s solution was to throw out all absentee ballots and keep the “in-person” votes. In Florida, you don’t need to provide a photocopy of your ID with an absentee ballot if you’re already on the voter rolls.

The main weak point in our voting process is not “in person” vote fraud, which is relatively slow and time-consuming. The weak point is the people who manage the election machinery (i.e. those who process ballot boxes, count votes, have access to the voting machines, etc). I would love to see the same enthusiasm for voter id applied to securing the rest of the voting process, such as making voting machines less hackable, better transparency wrt procedures, etc. But, I’m not expecting that to happen for various reasons, one of them being that doing so doesn’t provide the obvious partisan benefit that requiring voter ID does.

Is safeguarding voting from fraud less important than protecting drivers from drunk drivers? One affects, what? a dozen families at most while the other can affect the entire country.

I am not a big fan of checkpoints, but to engage your comparison I would not that 1 drunk driver can cause more harm by several orders of magnitude than can one fraudulent vote. So if we are doing pure cost/benefit the checkpoint make more sense than picture ID laws for voting.

Further, the cost of slowing down at the checkpoint is actually lower than the cost associated with having to acquire an ID, especially for hourly wage workers who might have to lose a substantial amount of time at work (and hence a real cost in wages).

Like others, I have no problem with the notion of voter ID in theory, but if we are going to do it, it needs to be a free, universal ID. Because the bottom line is quite clearly this: the affluent and powerful have IDs. If you are well educated, have a good job, etc., this is a non-issue to you and therefore easy to go the “tough noogies” route (indeed, I once had that general attitude until i thought about a) the actual evidence of fraud, and b) the very real disenfranchisement issues).

I think that voting is as fundamental a right as any that we have and therefore engaging in policy that selectively disenfranchises specific segments of the population is quite problematic from my point of view. It is doubly so when, as James rightly notes, the party pushing the policies is not the party adversely effected.

Tough noogies. Really, people, how hard is it to get an ID? Most, if not all, states require people to register to vote. So, why not knock out the ID requirement at the same time? And who the hell doesn’t have an ID, anyway? We check people’s ID card for everything from taking an airplane ride to cashing a check to getting into an R-rated (er, NC-17) movie. Surely, it’s not unreasonable to ask them to show one to ensure our elections are above-board.

As it has been stated here several times – voting is a constitutional right.
Airplane rides, cashing checks, getting into movies are all not constitutional rights. You’re comparing apples to orangutans.

Ask yourself this: Can you think of one other constitutional right that should be inhibited based on the sole practice of not having an I.D.?
Speech, press, religion, due process, etc… All of which do not just fly out the window just because you don’t have an I.D.

Which means that we’re essentially disenfranchising large numbers of people to prevent something we’re pretty sure isn’t happening. Given that the people being disenfranchised are disproportionately from one political party and that the people pushing for these laws are almost entirely from the opposing political party, that’s problematic.

Ahh, but like you wrote, “tough noogies”, right? I mean, who really cares about democracy anyway…

After the 2008 election, there were just as many Democrats talking about the “permanent Democratic majority”.

Of course, Democrats don’t want to disenfranchise large groups of voters to achieve that majority, unlike Republicans…

And we’d also have federal voting standards.

That would make too much sense, what with the 10th Amendment, state’s rights, and all of that…

Let us not forget that this is the same state where Republicans wanted to change how electoral votes are dispersed so as to help the Republican presidential nominee…no one should be shocked by any of this…

@Liberal Cap: Here’s an idea – Make us a real democracy, and make voting mandatory (like Brazil)

Once again another civic minded wizard has come up with the bright idea of forcing US Citizens to vote in elections.
“They do it in Brazil!” is the cry. We should do it here.
Of course no one ever wants to talk about enforcement. Either Lib Cap wants to check me to see if I have voted or he wants someone else to do it. Most likely the Federal Election Police.
This will be Federal Legislation of course. It will have to be to coerce all 50 States to throw citizens in jail for not voting and refusing to pay the fine.
This is not about freedom it is about control.
“But you can go the the polls and not mark the ballot if you don’t like the candidates.” they declare.
So the law demands forced voting but advocates say go to the polls and violate the statute by not voting.
How does this command respect for the law?
As for Brazil, maybe we should emulate their drunk driving laws too.
“…drivers caught with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.2 grams of alcohol per liter of blood (or .02 BAC level) – the equivalent to a can of beer or a glass of wine – must pay a $600 fine and have their right to drive suspended for a year.”
Sounds like a great idea to me.http://gobrazil.about.com/od/gettingaroundbrazil/a/drylaw.htm
Then there is the issue of religious freedom.
“We as Jehovah’s witness absolutely do not vote and it doesn’t matter which kingdom hall in the world you go to there are absolutely no deviations in what we believe. We are united in the same line of thought.”http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_Jehovah's_Witnesses_believe_in_voting#ixzz204EZJP1I
Are we going to exempt certain sects yet force others to the polls or are we going to fill the jails with International Bible Students for practicing the tenents of their faith?
I don’t know which is worse, citizens who want to force me to vote or be punished or citizens who want me to carry a National ID card or be punished.

@Lib Cap: You’re not free to redefine words when they suit you. A poll tax is a poll tax, not any inconvenience you might find taxing or in the least bit onerous. The USSC has already declared that Voter IDs are not, in themselves, unconstitutional. They don’t say that about poll taxes and I think at least they know the difference.

Also, the Michigan DOT v. Sitz case was resolved by the Supreme Court, not a Michigan governor. Makes a difference, you know.

You seem to be having issues with what the law of the land actually is, rather than what you’d like it to be.

@Steven L. Taylor: As far as I can tell, the states requiring ID have been bending over backwards to make it easier to obtain. They’ve reduced the cost to zero for the ID itself; they maintain weekend and evening or extended hours in the issuing offices. Now, that may very well not be the case in all states, but it is here in FL.

I think there’s a fair role for political parties to be engaged in helping people get their IDs in the same manner as they help them get to the polls on election day. I know I receive requests to volunteer as a driver every election… from both parties.

@PogueMahone: Have you tried recently to buy a firearm (2nd Amendment guarantee!) without a photo ID? Didn’t think so.

Or, how about defending yourself in a court? 6th Amendment there. Sure, you can try to be anonymous in the defendant’s chair, but it doesn’t work very well.

@Lib Cap: You’re not free to redefine words when they suit you. A poll tax is a poll tax, not any inconvenience you might find taxing or in the least bit onerous. The USSC has already declared that Voter IDs are not, in themselves, unconstitutional. They don’t say that about poll taxes and I think at least they know the difference.

John,

Seriously… Do you only read the parts that make you happy and ignore the rest?

Initially, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937), found the poll tax to be constitutional. The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, reflecting a political compromise, abolished the use of the poll tax (or any other tax) as a pre-condition for voting in Federal elections, but made no mention of poll taxes in state elections.

In the 1966 case of Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Breedlove v. Suttles, and extended the prohibition of poll taxes to state elections. It declared that the imposition of a poll tax in state elections violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Harper ruling was one of several that rely on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment rather than the more direct provision of the 15th Amendment. In a two-month period in the spring of 1966, Federal courts declared unconstitutional poll tax laws in the last four states to have them, starting with Texas on 9 February. Decisions followed for Alabama (3 March) and Virginia (25 March). Mississippi’s $2.00 poll tax (equal to $14.33 today) was the last to fall, declared unconstitutional on 8 April 1966, by a Federal panel in Jackson, Mississippi.[2] Virginia attempted to partially abolish its poll tax by requiring a residence certification, but the Supreme Court did not accept this.

So… from the link that YOU provided… What does the Supreme Court say about Poll Taxes?

It appears that they may just be against them.

Now… If you did want to prove your case (and let me do so, since you appear somewhat challanged) you may wish to have provided this link:

@John Burgess: “…the states requiring ID have been bending over backwards to make it easier to obtain.”

Not requiring Official State Issued Identification Papers would be the easiest.

“By establishing a people‘s registration (Volkskartei – ID card) we will achieve complete supervision of the entire German people” Herman Göring, quoted in The Nazi Census.

Ernie,

For this, thanks for making my point.

For whatever reason (religious, conspiracy theorist, etc) some folks in the USA are just absolutely opposed to a Gov’t ID.

And… as a result, except for passports, ID’s will likely remain a “states right” issue.

Now, if you arge FOR a ID for a Federal Election, but argue AGAINST a Federal issued ID… well, that is your boggle.

(Honestly, it amuses the rest of us)

So: to make wackadoodles like you happy… Let’s try this very slight modification of my first statement…

“Create a STATE ISSUED ID, WITH RULES CONSISTANT FROM STATE-TO-STATE, provided free to every American Citizen. Make it easy to get at any library or shopping mall or public building. Make it easy to “grandfather” senior citizens or home born individuals that may not have documentation.”

I would be totally OK with that. Make it so!

If we are all willing to pay the cost of elections, then let’s make that comittment to pay for those ID’s.

However, unless that happens, then the rest of the crap is total jibberish.

Ex: Mississippi states that said you need a picture ID, suggests that those that do not have one get a copy of their birth certificiate. However teh folks that oversee the birth certificate have a requirement to request a picture ID to get that certificate.

“*If government-issued photo ID is not available, there are options. These include other photo ID, utilities bills, leases, etc. that show both name and address. Even without these, one can cast a provisional vote that is later verified by election officials. “

Ah, it’s just too simple of an explanation, John. You see, the matter of voter ID requires drama and an aura of deception attached to it. Never mind, how many places require such ID to travel, to bank, to do any number of basic functions in life. It has nothing to do with “Where are your papers, please,” but rather assures others of your identity in order to perform an important function or task. Why isn’t voting deemed as important as getting on a plane or cashing a check?

In america’s history, Voting (a right grated to us by our formation of a government) is a pretty big deal

Voting IS a constitutional right.

assure(ing) others of your identity in order to perform an important function or task

…However, it is not a requirement of the constitution, nor a right defined there within.

getting on a plane

…is not a requirement of the constitution, nor a right defined there within.

or cashing a check?

…is not a requirement of the constitution, nor a right defined there within.

Now, if you are thinking: “why would anyone want to threaten my rights?” or “why should I be concerned of anyone else’s rights?”… then you do everyone who has fought tyranny and oppression since the Magna Cara a great disservice.

While many in the USA may not have a memory politic or a sense of history, in fact history does have a memory.

@Lib Cap: You offered up Brazil as an example of “they do it in Brazil (force people to vote) so why don’t we do it here.”
If the rational for legislation in the United States is “they do it in other countries” then why not use that same rational for drunk driving laws or anything else for that matter.

So forced, mandatory voting is “a way to encourage participation in the electoral process” is it?
Just what is the punishment going to be for citizens who do not submit to your political coersion…er encouragement?
Apparently in Brazil you lose the right to vote. If you embrace this punishment doesn’t this run counter to your idea of forcing…oops…encouraging universal participation?
And again I ask how you will deal with religious sects that refuse to vote as it would violate the tenants of their faith? Taking away their voting rights would not be a punishment and I doubt the courts would uphold fines or imprisonment for practicing their religion.
I think your National ID Card is pretty ugly too. Not to mention repugnant to democracy.

Wisconsin’s voter ID law, which went into effect on February, says that you can only present a state driver’s license, a state non-driver ID, a card issued by a U.S. uniformed service, a Passport, a certificate of naturalization issued not more than two years before the election, an ID card from a federally recognized Indian tribe, or a student ID that must contain a signature, an issue date, and an expiration date no later than two years after the election. Universities that have IDs that don’t comply with those stipulations have been scrambling to create voter IDs for their students.

So, in Wisconsin, not just an ID, not just a picture ID, but a recent (less than two year issued) non expired ID.

Like Jan said:

You see, the matter of voter ID requires drama and an aura of deception attached to it.

Jan, you couldn’t have said it better if you were Gov.Walker himself !

@Moosebreath: One has to go state to state, of course, but there has been a movement to take student IDs off the table in many states on the presumption that students are transient and should only be allowed to vote at home.

All this raises the problem that not all citizens have the same access to the ballot box across states, which is troublesome in and of itself.

@PJ: “…but what you’re arguing about can be easily solved.”
Maybe.
If all it takes when the Federal Election Police asks an American why they did not vote is to reply “It is contrary to my religious beliefs.” then OK, maybe it is easily solved.
However I gotta’ think it won’t stop there. You know…anyone can say that.
It’s a good bet citizens will somehow have to prove their religious tenents prohibit voting.
Maybe your name will have to be on an official, government sanctioned, Church membership list.
Or how about an Official Religion ID Card. Yeah, that would do it.

Of course all these draconian measures could be avoided if, as you support, there is no forced voting to begin with.

House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, one of the Republicans who guided the voter ID bill through the Legislature in March, was listing recent legislative accomplishments at a meeting of the Republican State Committee in June, when he added: “Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania — done.”

Here’s a guy who thinks his bill stacked the deck for his candidate.

Should we just pretend he never said that? Is it an inconvenient truth?

If ACORN or any other group has engaged in a scheme to submit phony registrations, by all means that should be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted. What Mr. McCain’s alarmist attack ignores, however, is the enormous gulf between improper voter registration — whether fraudulent or merely erroneous — and actually committing fraud at the ballot box. Evidence of fraudulent voting is scant, though there is always a risk. But there is a far greater risk of citizens entitled to vote being turned away from the polls — and the real threat to the “fabric of democracy” is the McCain campaign’s effort to stir up unfounded suspicions of massive voter fraud, casting unwarranted doubt on the legitimacy of the election.

I think McCain’s statement is remarkable, because the speaker was not just Rush or Sean or Bill, but the candidate himself. A supposed ‘moderate.’ And the claim he made, using extreme language, was so out of proportion to the underlying reality (since “evidence of fraudulent voting is scant”).

And four years later, the GOP is still doing that same despicable shit: trying “to stir up unfounded suspicions of massive voter fraud.”

If we are going to have a “your papers please” society they should at least be very easy to get and free.

Sums it up. In Canada you need to show ID to vote (doesn’t have to be picture ID though), but its not a problem because the gov’t makes it very easy to get such ID – a health card (public health of course) for instance is fine, and everyone has one of those for free.

Having to pay for such ID is basically putting a fee on voting. If nothing else, the gov’t should give out free voter’s cards if you’re going to have this requirement, and make it trivial (as in easy to get to locations, where you show up, get the ID, and are out in say a quarter of an hour) to get.

Do it that way, and I haven’t a problem – anyone who couldn’t be bothered to spend 15 minutes probably isn’t interested in voting anyway. Without that, and its obviously just a way to disenfranchise people.

It’s unfortunate that that ID bill in Michigan was vetoed. I suspect this Nov. in and around Detroit the machine Democrat operation will be dragging corpses from cemeteries to the ballot booths. Seriously. Literally.

In any event, what’s sort of funny about Democrat high dudgeon mode about voter ID laws — in the vein of a dark comedy farce — is that they’ve managed to convince even educated, even reasonable people (or at least semi-reasonable) that these laws actually might disenfranchise people. Here’s a newsflash from the real world: Virtually everybody eligible to vote already has valid IDs.

If you’re Joe minimum wage casual per diem worker you already have ID because either you drive around looking for per diem jobs (you need a driver’s license) or because at some point recently you’ve filed for unemployment (you needed an ID). If you’re Sally Section 8 Housing you already have an ID because otherwise you’d not have gotten that housing. If you’re Mike SSI recipient you already have ID because otherwise you’d not have received SSI benefits. If you’re on Social Security benefits you already have ID because otherwise you’d not have received those benefits. Same for food stamps. Same for SDI benefits. Medicare. Medicaid. So on, so forth. Shit, the number of people eligible to vote without existing IDs is so small it’s ridiculous. If you actually believe that 750,000 figure for PA then I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. For those people who could vote but who really are without IDs, well, hello, these sorts of laws provide free solutions. As in free IDs.

ID laws are a no brainer. Unless of course we’re willing to tolerate elections being tainted by systemic fraud. Unless we’re OK with the U.S. being a third-world banana republic.

I don’t know where you shop, but any time I use a credit card for a purchase over a certain amount ($25 to $50 depending on the particular merchant), I’m asked to show ID to verify the card is mine. It’s been that way for a long time, in the effort to prevent fraudulent purchases on credit cards.

My daughter’s debit card was fraudulently duplicated last year and someone used it to rack up over $700 in purchases at a mall in North Carolina. All the purchase amounts were relatively minor, so the thief most likely wasn’t asked to show ID. Luckily, my daughter is one of those people that checks her account balance every single morning, so the bank was able to cancel the card before any more damage was done. Wells Fargo (bless them) didn’t hold her responsible for any of the charges.

In the age of identity theft, I wish everyone had to show picture ID any time they used a credit or debit card to make a purchase, no matter how nominal the amount.

I don’t know where you shop, but any time I use a credit card for a purchase over a certain amount ($25 to $50 depending on the particular merchant), I’m asked to show ID to verify the card is mine. It’s been that way for a long time, in the effort to prevent fraudulent purchases on credit cards.

I’m not sure where you shop either. I purchased both a new refrigerator and a flat screen TV separately over the holiday season, at major appliance stores, for over $1000 each I was not asked for identification. It just does not happen very often that I am asked for photo-ID when I pay for transactions with either credit or debit cards.

Given that the people being disenfranchised are disproportionately from one political party and that the people pushing for these laws are almost entirely from the opposing political party, that’s problematic.

Point one: We keep hearing the left whine about disenfranchisement especially among minorities, the poor, and the elderly. Yet, elderly voters consistently vote Republican. Senior citizens were the only age cohort that favored McCain in 2008 and Romney has a 14 point lead among voters 70+. Explain to me how Republicans are going to steal an election by disenfranchising Romney voters.

Point two: Voter id laws are popular! Whether you believe photo id laws are necessary or not, the voters want them. In most polls, 75% of the electorate favors photo id laws. Smart politicians respond when 3 out of 4 Americans agree on something. I’m not sure what Democrats do.

Point three: This idea that there hasn’t been enough election fraud to justify photo id is ludicrous. There is substantial evidence that election fraud in Chicago tipped the 1960 Presidential election in Kennedy’s favor. Whether that is true or not, a significant number of Americans believe it to be so, and it will probably be debated for all time. Wouldn’t we be better off with a system that made stealing elections less likely and inspired more confidence.

“Whether that is true or not, a significant number of Americans believe it to be so, and it will probably be debated for all time. Wouldn’t we be better off with a system that made stealing elections less likely and inspired more confidence.”

Another great way to avoid the perception of stealing elections — just don’t have any, and instead proclaim that we have decided to keep Republicans in office perpetually. The differences between my proposal and voter ID laws is not as great as they appear.

As a Republican, I’m not very familiar with legal, institutionalized segregation. As we all know, it’s the Democrats who have the proud history of slavery, segregation, and racism.

Nice repetition of a popular talking point, that an actual examination of history makes far more complicated.

Yes, the Democratic party was tied in with slavery, segregation, and racism. HOWEVER… the tale of the tape shows a marked transition/inflection point that took place in the lead up to — and into — the civil rights movement, in which there was a gradual shift — especially in the South — from racists and segrationists leaving the democratic party (and most of them ended up in the Republican party).

Yes, it is entirely true that the majority of Southern Democrats voted against the civil rights act. However it’s also true that ALL Southern Republicans voted against the act.

And if you look nationally, in all other regions there was a greater percentage of support for the Civil Rights act by DEMOCRATS

By party and region
Note: “Southern”, as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. “Northern” refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

And since that time, there is ample evidence to demonstrate how conservative media has repeatedly blown the race whistle… over and over again. So pretending that somehow Democrats are still segregationists or that Republicans have any modern higher moral ground in this is pure crap.

I don’t know where you shop, but any time I use a credit card for a purchase over a certain amount ($25 to $50 depending on the particular merchant), I’m asked to show ID to verify the card is mine. It’s been that way for a long time, in the effort to prevent fraudulent purchases on credit cards.

Your single account does not — in any way — stand as anything more than a single anecdotal data point.

Where I live — mid sized metropolitan area — I rarely if ever get asked to show photo id… which is ironic as on the back of all of my cards, in big black sharpie, I have written “PLEASE CHECK PHOTO ID.” In fact, I typically go out of my way to thank cashiers who actually check.

In part that’s because most of the time, I’m the one swiping my card through the machine… not the cashier. But even in those cases where I swipe, and the cashier has to take my card, they rarely check.

And, in fact, the same thing typically happens on trips out of the area… including at restaurants, where the bill is typically well over the amounts you mentioned, and where the server takes the card with them to run.

My point is, don’t make the mistake of assuming that your experience which having your photo ID constantly checked in necessarily the norm anywhere else. For example, it could be the case that there is a local/state law that is requiring it.

Strom Thurmond
Thurmond represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Democrat and, after 1964. as a Republican. He switched because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act…

For 100 years, the Democratic Party made a home for Southern segregationists. To equate Republican opposition to affirmative action or support for photo id laws with the institutional racism perpetrated by Democrats in the Jim Crow South is beneath contempt.

So we need to base our voter laws on what the Daley Machine may have done in Chicago over 50 years ago…there’s some great logic there…

No, moron. We need to base our voter laws on the fact that it’s very possible (and, as many people believe has already happened) that a corrupt political machine in one city could potentially steal a presidential election through voter fraud. We need to base our voter laws on trying to prevent that from ever happening or ever happening again.

@Septimius: Trying to hide behind what the Daley Machine did over 50 years ago is such a convenient way to try to negate how demographics are slowly but surely hurting Republicans…but keep telling us you’re only worried about the integrity of votes…maybe some moron will buy that…

For 100 years, the Democratic Party made a home for Southern segregationists. To equate Republican opposition to affirmative action or support for photo id laws with the institutional racism perpetrated by Democrats in the Jim Crow South is beneath contempt.

So, you still ignore race history since 1964? That’s a you problem, not my problem. Did I equate current GOP opposition to affirmative action with racism by pre-1964 Southern Democrats? No, of course not.

Is the GOP trying to suppress the Democratic voter turn out with photo-ID requirements? Of course it is.

We’ll just ignore the fact that an entire region of the country that was dominated by racist Democrats almost uniformly voted against the Civil Rights Act. You’re an absolute joke.

Ummm no. I just called it out. In fact I posted the numbers.

I believe it’s you that is then ignoring what happened after that vote… Both the fact that most of those Democrats then crossed the isle and joined the Republican party (in part out of overall protest and in part from the entire “Southern Strategy”).

And that since that vote the South has shifted from being reliably Democrat to reliably Republican. All those racists had to end up somewhere…

@EMRVentures: I have to question your status as an “ordinary” citizen if you have not had to produce your ID at least 2-3 times per week. Because of ID theft (as you mentioned) more and more retail stores, hotels, etc ask to see ID when you use a credit card. Simialrly, zero tolerance laws have me handing over my ID to the 19 year old clerk to prove that my grey hair is not a ploy to allow me to buy alchohol.

I acknowledge the possiblity that you are not misrepresenting your situation – in fact, I will speicifically state that I accept your statement at face value. its just that it cannot apply to 99% of the population.

@mattb: After the major civil rights acts were put into place, the south continued to vote Dem for everything except the presidency and it was not Nixon’s enforcement of school desegregation or implementation of the first federal affirmative action plan that allowed him to carry a few of the southern states in 68. They voted against him in 1960 (JFK carried TX, LA, GA, NC, SC, AR, AL. MS – was that because of his support of segregation – snark off) and 8 years later, they voted for Wallace in five of the old confederate states and TX went to Humphrey. Nixon’s success in 72 had much more to do with the horrible ineptness of McGovern and – again – the racist meme is ridiculous, If it was racist motivation that carried Nixon in MS, why did they vote for hime in NY, CT, etc

it is not acceptable that PA does not provide ID at no charge – I acknowledge that and support an appropriate change in the law. However, the “there is no voter fraud” meme is laughable. forbid traffic officers to ask for drivers licenses and watch the incidents of driving without a license plummet. I live in one of the worst machine politics cities in America (Chicago) and everyone – no matter their affiliation – finds this claim to be ridiculous. A clean election in Illinois would lead to the immediate transfer of 20 electoral college votes to Romney.

@rrdrrd: Again, it’s funny how you seem to come up with a number of ways to excuse the broader electoral trends that have been going on since the rise of the Civil Rights movement, including the overall shifts that have gone on in the South since the enactment of Civil Rights legislation.

I also note it interesting how you conviently stop with Nixon’s 72 election (not to mention an outright dismissal of any possibility that the “Southern Strategy” actually worked). I guess history stopped at ’72.

Look I’m not arguing that the Dems are saints. But this trend towards collectively ignoring the fact that since the Civil Rights act (if not before) there has been a general trend for Republicans to that the “white” side on the vast majority of race issues, with the shrillest voices often emerging from Right Wing Media.

I am NOT saying that all Republicans are racist (or that there are no racist Dems). But the continual denial that Republicans are somehow above stoking race politics to appeal to an increasingly aging white base is the height of self denial.

During the Civil Rights Era, [WF] Buckley made a name for himself as a promoter of white supremacy. National Review, which he founded in 1955, championed violent racist regimes in the American South and South Africa.